»Is the USA losing the separation between church and state?«
|
|||
 I recognise that you are not one of these Christians who are convinced that we are imminently approaching the rapture. (This appears to be the view that knn was baiting) "People also don't understand that, without the presupposition of an universal moral law, democracy is impossible. " What has this to do with Christianity? A universal moral law could be anybody's moral law. Why pick a homophobic God? And I still want you to tell me whether there are religious education classes in American schools, and if not, why not? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqIs the USA losing the separation between church and state? |
|
|||
 stinkz: No, that is ridiculous. Exposing kids to all the irrational religions out there, is practically choosing atheism for them. Bam, right there. Aren't you invalidating all the other, older religions than xianity? Xianity is right, all others are wrong? You believe in freedom of xianity, not freedom of religion. stinkz: I'm not saying that Christianity should rule the world. Everyone should have a choice about what to believe, always... and this is consistant with Christian values. What xian denomination are you referring to? Many xians believe you should have a choice, free will and all... But if your choice isn't xianity, then many believe you are wrong. They don't respect your choice. They believe you are going to hell. End of story. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 volonteshiva: Xianity is right, all others are wrong? You believe in freedom of xianity, not freedom of religion. No. I believe that everyone should have the right to believe whatever they want, whether it be rational or irrational. volonteshiva: But if your choice isn't xianity, then many believe you are wrong Of course, you irrational pluralist. If Christianity is true, then a religion which conflicts cannot also be true. Therefore, to believe Christianity is to believe that conflicting religions are false. That is simple logic. If Christ is the only hope for humanity, those who reject him will be separated from God forever, obviously. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stinkz, volonteshiva did not appear (to me) to be suggesting pluralism. What is being suggested here is that in order for there to be freedom of religion you should accept peoples right to be buddhist, hindu, muslim, sikh, wiccan, satanist or whatever other religion they should decide to choose. Also the various religious traditions should be explained in school in order to encourage tolerance of people in those other religions (even if they are going to hell). An example of intolerance due to poor education is in America after 9/11 where Sikhs were attacked because people believed their turbans marked them out as Taliban supporters. So the question is, do you believe in freedom of religion or do you think other religious traditions should never be taught? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Stinkz, volonteshiva did not appear (to me) to be suggesting pluralism. Are you blind? His point was that, to believe Christianity, you must believe that others are "wrong." This is somehow a bad thing, in his eyes, just as it is in the eyes of every pluralist. fatpie42: do you think other religious traditions should never be taught? Did I ever say that other religious traditions shouldn't be taught? No. I was merely stating that, since there can never be a completely unbiased education system, that a Christian bias would be better than the Atheist one we have now. But, if you would like to know my political stance on the issue, I'm for complete privatization of the school system. No more government schools, and fewer government regulations on private schools. The government should not be able to tell us what we can and cannot learn. Propaganda is spread so easily that way (as is obviously seen). If I want my children to go to a school with a leftist slant on everything, I should have that option, but I should not be forced to. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Of course, you irrational pluralist. If Christianity is true, then a religion which conflicts cannot also be true. Therefore, to believe Christianity is to believe that conflicting religions are false. Do you intend to use the words rational and irrational in every post you make? Other religions don't believe xiany is in conflict with their doctrine/believes. But let's just say that each religion believes they are right and therefore all the others are wrong. Where does that get you? No one will have any respect for others because of their religious beliefs conflict, and there would be nonstop fighting since each group can't/doesn't want to isolate themselves permanently. This has been a repeating story throughout much of human history. Why do we have it continue? Why is religion really worth fighting and killing someone else over? What does it gain you in the long term? You kill/shun this guy, then his kid comes back and returns the favor. How does this promote a better, more peaceful existence? If the state is controlled by a xian doctrine which believes that all other belief sets are wrong, then how could we ever truly respect another nation and it's people? There are many people within all religions that want to coexist with each other. There are conferences every year where religious leaders meet to discuss common ground and the means of coexistence. I have no illusions that this will ever occur, but people like you certainly don't help the possibility. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
volonteshiva: No one will have any respect for others because of their religious beliefs conflict, and there would be nonstop fighting since each group can't/doesn't want to isolate themselves permanently. Where do you come up with this stuff? Who told you that? Belief that Christianity is true, to the exclusion of all other religions, does not conjure automatic violence. That is absurd. Put Christianity into the marketplace of ideas. But, at least let there be a marketplace of ideas! Don't force all religions into pluralism. That is the exact opposite of freedom of religion. And besides, of course, Atheism is never considered one of the religions which must follow that route. It's as if Atheism is the only religion people can believe whole-heartedly, these days, and not get slammed for it. No wonder people believe it. It's easy, you don't need to worry about a strict moral code, and best of all, you don't have to think! volonteshiva: If the state is controlled by a xian doctrine When have I ever said that the state should be controlled Christianity? The state should not be controlled by a religion. We already have enough protection from that occuring within the Constitution, where it says no religious test may be administered for admittance into office. volonteshiva: believes that all other belief sets are wrong, then how could we ever truly respect another nation and it's people? Another absurdity. Respect for another culture is not equivalent to accepting it's beliefs. One can respect a culture, despite the fact that he doesn't agree with it's teachings. I assume that is what you do with all religions, being an atheist. Perhaps it's what you're doing with mine, though it hardly seems so. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: His point was that, to believe Christianity, you must believe that others are "wrong." This is somehow a bad thing, in his eyes, just as it is in the eyes of every pluralist. You may be right, but I took volonteshiva's post to mean that if you use Christian principles as your starting point you have already ruled out the worth of all other religions. In a society where other religions are shunned, people are unlikely to be able to choose them (For example, few people are likely to become Christians in Afghanistan). What denomination of Christianity supports 'freedom of religion' exactly? It is 'freedom of Christianity' you are describing. stinkz: Did I ever say that other religious traditions shouldn't be taught? No. I was merely stating that, since there can never be a completely unbiased education system, that a Christian bias would be better than the Atheist one we have now. stinkz: No, that is ridiculous. Exposing kids to all the irrational religions out there, is practically choosing atheism for them. Maybe I'm misinterpreting here? I thought in that last quote you were saying that you should not teach children about other religious traditions. I am saying that it is an important part of their education as well as a personal right if 'freedom of religion' is to be possible. Does it not make sense that the best approach to all these religions is a non-religious stance? This way none of the religions is taught as absolute truth and if the pupils which to take one of them, such as Christianity, in that way, then they can. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: a society where other religions are shunned, people are unlikely to be able to choose them This is exactly why our universities are pouring out vast quantities of Atheists, as we speak. fatpie42: For example, few people are likely to become Christians in Afghanistan You'd be surprised, actually. Much of the time, people in these kinds of places are willing and eager to reject their false teachings and accept the Gospel. The places where it is most difficult to witness are the ones with all-around moral stagnation, and religious pluralism. fatpie42: Does it not make sense that the best approach to all these religions is a non-religious stance? There's no such thing as a non-religious stance. You are either going to be teaching them a religion which upholds universal morality (Christianity) or one which undermines it (Atheism). And, if I know one thing for sure, it's that a moral upbringing is necessary. Those who stand completely outside morality, can never understand it. Being brought up in morality is really the only way to give a person a true choice. Allowing someone to grow up outside humanity altogether, is to condemn him to no moral understanding whatsoever. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Atheists don't stand outside morality. They stand outside of 'fixed' moral values. There's an important difference here. More to the point, are you saying that children should be educated about other religious traditions and beliefs or not? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie: Atheists don't stand outside morality. They stand outside of 'fixed' moral values. This is the same thing. A changable morality is none at all. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: fatpie: Atheists don't stand outside morality. They stand outside of 'fixed' moral values. This is the same thing. A changable morality is none at all. No. A fixed morality is a stagnant morality. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: No. A fixed morality is a stagnant morality. That makes no sense. That's like saying a fixed chord in music is a "stagnant" chord. Man, if E is always E, you're gunna have some boring music! posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: fatpie42: No. A fixed morality is a stagnant morality. That makes no sense. That's like saying a fixed chord in music is a "stagnant" chord. Man, if E is always E, you're gunna have some boring music! No. It is like saying that if an animal cannot adapt it will die. If you choose to contradict this using man made ideas like musical scales or mathematics, you are merely emphasising that morality is a man-made system which man can choose to alter. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: made ideas like musical scales or mathematics, you are merely emphasising that morality is a man-made system which man can choose to alter. So now mathematics is merely a man-made system? Do you really think humans really change it however they see fit? Such views are completely irrational posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 20:51 php B.B. |